Tipton

Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. v. Tipton

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 26, 2023C095606California2,972 words

Opinion

Opinion

Eurie, J.

BACKGROUND 2

After a fire destroyed defendants’ home, they filed an insurance claim in which they overstated losses related to the contents of their home. (People v. Tipton, supra,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 On October 26, 2022, Nationwide requested we take judicial notice of several court records. The court received no opposition from defendants. However, during oral argument on April 17, 2023, counsel for defendants argued against the request. Such a late opposition is not allowed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a)(3), (c) [“any opposition” to a written motion filed in a reviewing court “must be served and filed within 15 days after the motion is filed,” and “failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion”].) Accordingly we take judicial notice of all records in Nationwide’s appendix concerning (1) defendants’ criminal cases, (2) civil

2 C083065.) Nationwide alleged in court filings that among the overstated losses was the claimed loss of an original Vincent van Gogh “Starry Night” painting. Defendants pled guilty to a felony insurance fraud allegation and no contest to a felony perjury allegation,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.